JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The plaintiffs' suit bearing Civil Suit No. 96/1 of 1992, claiming therein, the making, of, a declaratory relief, for annulment of order of mutation No.128 of 30.01.1995 Vikramt Samvat, and, also claiming, the, further relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant, became decreed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried thereagainst, by the aggrieved defendants, before the First Appellate Court, the latter Court affirmed the judgement and decree, as, pronounced by the learned Civil Court, upon, the afore civil suit No. 96/1 of 1992. The defendants become aggrieved therefrom, and, for seeking annulment thereof, they cast the extant regular second appeal before this Court.

2. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 4.8.2004, hence, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the defendants-appellants can raise the point of limitation after having given up such a plea before the trial Court and not having raised before the first Appellate Court?

2. If question No.1 is decided in the affirmative, whether the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was barred by time?

3. Whether the findings recorded by both the learned Courts are contrary to the pleadings set up by the plaintiffs and a new case could not have been created in favour of the plaintiffs by the court below?

4. Whether the respective claims of the parties regarding their right of inheritance of late Smt. Basanti was required to be determined in accordance with the principle of Old Hindu Law or those were to be determined in consonance with the Wazib-ul-Arz, Ex. D-2 by which admittedly the parties were governed?

Substantial questions of Law No.1 to 4:

3. Before proceeding to answer the afore extracted substantial questions of law, it is imperative to set forth the facts relevant to the extant lis. In the afore endeavour, it is also important, to extract, the undisputed Sajra Nasab or Pedigree table:-

From a perusal thereof, it becomes unfolded, that, one Chandu died living behind his widow one Basanti. Since, the demise of Basanti occurred prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, hence, she became a limited owner of the suit land, as, left behind by her pre- deceased husband, one Chandu. The further effect of the afore surviving widow of one Chandu, holding, only a limited or a restricted right, in the estate, succeeded by her, from her pre-deceased husband, is that, on her demise, her estate was to revert, to the apposite reversioner(s). The apposite reversioner(s), as, apparent, on a reading, of the afore extracted pedigree table, are one Sukhu, Goriya and Attra. Through, the contested order of mutation bearing No.128 of 31.01.1995 Vikrami Samvat, all the afore, inasmuch, as, Goriya, Attra, and, Sukhu became conferred, in proportion to their entitlements therein, titles as owners, in the undivided suit property/land. However, the plaintiffs, contended that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants No.1 to 7, namely one Attra, was not alive, at the time, of demise of Basanti, hence, no valid vestment of title, through, the afore order of mutation, could be made in his favour, and, also averred that the thereafter made revenue entries in favour of co-defendants No.4 to 7, are